Mom was making her write Valentine's Day cards for everyone in the class. EVERYONE. It wasn't fair.
Her Mom's explanation was: "Ms. Farley said that her policy is that everyone gets a card or you don't bring any cards at all. It's so that no one feels left out and sad."
"Then I'd rather bring no cards at all." she had said, but to no avail.
Here she was, instead, writing stupid cards for everyone.
You had to be soooo careful because you couldn't just give the stupid little pictures and messages in the cards to just anyone (and Mom always bought cards with stupid little pictures and messages). If it said "love" or hinted at it, you had to make sure that went to a girl. If it had cute little animals, same thing. Boys had to get superheroes or trains or cars AND you had to make sure there wasn't a message that suggested you liked the boy. No hearts for boys either.
Then, you had to be careful about what you wrote. Safest thing for girls was "Your friend, ..." or just "Happy Valentine's Day!" Boys got "From..."
Then there was Eddie. What a jerk. What a bully. "He gets a card too!?! Mom! I can't do it."
But her Mom shuffled through the pile of cards and pulled one out that just said "Happy Valentine's Day" on the front and nothing inside. NOTHING. How perfect because Eddie was a nothing.
He stole people's lunches. He punched you when no one was looking. He made faces at Ms. Farley when she had her back to the class. He made fake fart noises (which was actually pretty funny, but RUDE!) And here she was being forced to write a card for that worthless loser.
She opened the blank card and wrote her name and nothing else. Not even a 'from'. "That'll show him", she thought with a malicious smile.
----
Valentine's Day in Ms. Farley's class was pretty good. They had a party instead of math. And at the end of the party, they each got a little box to put on their desk, and then walked around dropping their cards in each other's boxes.
When she got to Eddie's desk, she quickly checked if Ms. Farley was looking and when she was sure she wasn't, she plugged her nose with one hand and dropped her card in his box with the other.
They all sat down after that and had a few minutes to open their cards.
She picked the first one at random and opened it. The print said "Happy Valentine's Day" on the front, and nothing inside, except "Eddie". WHAT A JERK!
Then she opened another. It was the same card, and inside it said "Kenneth".
Then the same again, from "Emily". And "Lisa". And "Thomas"...
Tears welled up in her eyes as she opened each envelope and found the same card over and over again from every kid in class. They hadn't even had the decency to write anything but their names inside! Not even a 'from'.
She stood up and asked Ms. Farley if she could go to the office because she wasn't feeling well.
Her Mom picked her up 20 minutes later, and she cried all the way home.
---
The next day, when she came into class, she made a point of going straight to her seat without teasing anyone. At recess, she didn't get in any fights and instead tried playing tag with some of the other girls. In fact, she went all day without once getting in trouble.
Valentine's Day message received.
(Love David. Happy Valentine's Day.)
Monday, February 13, 2017
Tuesday, February 7, 2017
Reflections on the seemingly inevitable demise of my morning paper
In 1999, Russell Ackoff wrote:
The DIKW model (which isn't Ackoff's), is often depicted as a pyramid, and doesn't include an 'understanding' tier.
Because I personally like Ackoff's addition of "understanding" in the hierarchy, that's the version I'll refer to here.
My thoughts below aren't in the context of education; instead, I'm reflecting on my morning paper and my concern for its demise.
-------
I still get a newspaper delivered to my home every morning. I diligently read it every day and take the information it contains more-or-less at face value. I can generally tell the difference between what is information and what is opinion, and I tend to trust the information because I trust traditional journalism, its foundational ethics and processes, the professionals who have been educated and vetted before landing at a major paper, the editors who carefully guard against breaches of the rules, and so on.
I believe, perhaps naively, that because all of those people have done their job responsibly, I don't need to familiarize myself with all of the data from which their information was drawn. In the same way, I trust the information my doctor gives me without personally digging into the data, and I trust information about home renovations when it comes from a professional who knows much more than I do about the underlying data and who has personal experience applying the data and the information.
In those other professions, though, I further rely on the professionals' personal knowledge; their processing of the information they've studied and gathered directly from experience. I'll continue to do so, and to build even deeper faith in the individual's knowledge until and unless I see first-hand that their data->information->knowledge conversion is not trustworthy.
From professional journalists, I don't ask for knowledge and they don't claim the right to give it to me. Just information. And opinion that has been clearly identified as such. My newspaper is one source for me in the search for knowledge and understanding about what's going on in the world. It contains (I believe) data and information carefully vetted and explained, and that's all. I trust that, and a few other sources.
So I'm worried - very worried - when I think about the (near) future of traditional journalism. It can't and won't survive the disruption of its business model, resulting from technological change, democratization of publishing, changes in consumer preferences, etc. I can only hope that whatever fills the void will also be built on a foundation of professional ethics that puts the truth first.
The more dangerous development, though, (in my opinion of course) is that so many people are implicitly and blindly short-cutting the data-information-knowledge-understanding-wisdom hierarchy because it's so much easier to do so than to be diligent about each of its layers. I'm comfortable getting my data and information from experts I trust, but I'm careful about who those experts are and I will stop trusting them when they show me that my trust is misplaced. I have a much higher standard for knowledge. And wisdom - to me - comes from my parents (and a lifetime of trust in them), from my religion (and the thousands of years of thought and observation upon which it is built) and from my own personal experiences and insights.
I am alarmed and saddened whenever I see people react to a Facebook post as if they are reading the words of a trusted journalist, when blog posts are shared as if they are thesis papers written after months of careful research, and when people posing as reporters share their opinions as fact and others embrace and share their views as if they are.
It is convenient to believe someone else's information or knowledge when it aligns with your own opinion, and it's also dangerous. Where's the data? Was it responsibly and diligently gathered, analyzed and processed into information? Is the information reliable? Is it based on reasonable conclusions without bias? Who is the source of the knowledge and how did they gain that knowledge?
Without rigour around data, information and knowledge, we won't find shared understanding, and wisdom will be a pipe dream. Because of all of that, it feels like we're headed for calamity.
My newspaper matters to me and I'll keep paying for it until I no longer can. You should consider doing the same (in my opinion).
Final note: Every word that I've written above is directed at people who largely share my worldview, not those who I feel are intentionally spreading "alternative facts". It's on you and me to defend the truth, not our preferred version of it.
An ounce of information is worth a pound of data. An ounce of knowledge is worth a pound of information. An ounce of understanding is worth a pound of knowledge.
Despite this, most of the time spent in school is devoted to the transmission of information and ways of obtaining it. Less time is devoted to the transmission of knowledge and ways of obtaining it (analytical thinking). Virtually no time is spent in transmitting understanding or ways of obtaining it (synthetic thinking).
The DIKW model (which isn't Ackoff's), is often depicted as a pyramid, and doesn't include an 'understanding' tier.Because I personally like Ackoff's addition of "understanding" in the hierarchy, that's the version I'll refer to here.
My thoughts below aren't in the context of education; instead, I'm reflecting on my morning paper and my concern for its demise.
-------
I still get a newspaper delivered to my home every morning. I diligently read it every day and take the information it contains more-or-less at face value. I can generally tell the difference between what is information and what is opinion, and I tend to trust the information because I trust traditional journalism, its foundational ethics and processes, the professionals who have been educated and vetted before landing at a major paper, the editors who carefully guard against breaches of the rules, and so on.
I believe, perhaps naively, that because all of those people have done their job responsibly, I don't need to familiarize myself with all of the data from which their information was drawn. In the same way, I trust the information my doctor gives me without personally digging into the data, and I trust information about home renovations when it comes from a professional who knows much more than I do about the underlying data and who has personal experience applying the data and the information.
In those other professions, though, I further rely on the professionals' personal knowledge; their processing of the information they've studied and gathered directly from experience. I'll continue to do so, and to build even deeper faith in the individual's knowledge until and unless I see first-hand that their data->information->knowledge conversion is not trustworthy.
From professional journalists, I don't ask for knowledge and they don't claim the right to give it to me. Just information. And opinion that has been clearly identified as such. My newspaper is one source for me in the search for knowledge and understanding about what's going on in the world. It contains (I believe) data and information carefully vetted and explained, and that's all. I trust that, and a few other sources.
So I'm worried - very worried - when I think about the (near) future of traditional journalism. It can't and won't survive the disruption of its business model, resulting from technological change, democratization of publishing, changes in consumer preferences, etc. I can only hope that whatever fills the void will also be built on a foundation of professional ethics that puts the truth first.
The more dangerous development, though, (in my opinion of course) is that so many people are implicitly and blindly short-cutting the data-information-knowledge-understanding-wisdom hierarchy because it's so much easier to do so than to be diligent about each of its layers. I'm comfortable getting my data and information from experts I trust, but I'm careful about who those experts are and I will stop trusting them when they show me that my trust is misplaced. I have a much higher standard for knowledge. And wisdom - to me - comes from my parents (and a lifetime of trust in them), from my religion (and the thousands of years of thought and observation upon which it is built) and from my own personal experiences and insights.
I am alarmed and saddened whenever I see people react to a Facebook post as if they are reading the words of a trusted journalist, when blog posts are shared as if they are thesis papers written after months of careful research, and when people posing as reporters share their opinions as fact and others embrace and share their views as if they are.
It is convenient to believe someone else's information or knowledge when it aligns with your own opinion, and it's also dangerous. Where's the data? Was it responsibly and diligently gathered, analyzed and processed into information? Is the information reliable? Is it based on reasonable conclusions without bias? Who is the source of the knowledge and how did they gain that knowledge?
Without rigour around data, information and knowledge, we won't find shared understanding, and wisdom will be a pipe dream. Because of all of that, it feels like we're headed for calamity.
My newspaper matters to me and I'll keep paying for it until I no longer can. You should consider doing the same (in my opinion).
Final note: Every word that I've written above is directed at people who largely share my worldview, not those who I feel are intentionally spreading "alternative facts". It's on you and me to defend the truth, not our preferred version of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)